Helmet Laws

Debates over bicycle safety in the United States frequently center on getting cyclists to wear protective helmets. Helmet use has increased markedly throughout the U.S. and in New York City. A whopping 63% of cyclists responding to the 1992 City Cyclist survey say they always wear a helmet  up from 42% in 1988; another 16% ride with helmets some of the time. Although these percentages overstate helmet use by the overall cycling population, there is no question that helmet use is large and growing.

Despite the rise in voluntary helmet use, some advocates and legislators increasingly are seeking to mandate their purchase and use. At least five states and a number of counties now require helmet use by children under various ages. [4] New Jersey recently mandated helmet use for cyclists age 14 and under, and Rockland County (NY) adopted legislation in mid-1992 requiring all cyclists of all ages to wear helmets. While no states have passed mandatory bicycle helmet laws for adults, a number of such bills have been introduced in state legislatures. A law mandating adult helmet use in Ontario, Canada is scheduled to take effect by 1994, even though 80% of cyclists surveyed there said they opposed the measure. [5] New York State law mandates helmets for children ages 1-5, who must also ride in approved child seats (infants under 12 months may not be carried on bikes).

Proponents of legislating mandatory helmet use cite strong evidence that helmets can prevent many fatalities and up to 88% of potential brain injuries in bad falls. [6] Opponents focus on the potential chilling effect of bike helmet laws on cycling itself. According to this argument, since cycling is already a discretionary activity, anything that makes cycling less convenient  and indeed the simplicity and convenience of bicycling is one of its main attractions  will discourage cycling.

In effect, mandatory helmet-use creates an additional expense for the cyclist, another piece of equipment to carry around and one more preparatory step before climbing aboard and pedaling away. And indeed, cycling has declined in several Australian states that passed mandatory adult helmet laws in 1990. [7] Ironically, helmet laws that discourage cycling may indirectly harm those so discouraged, in view of research indicating that cycling promotes health through the cardio-vascular benefits of vigorous exercise. [8]

Moreover, since many helmet-law proponents are medical professionals with little familiarity with cycling, some cyclists feel singled out among the various groups in society, many of whom  motorists, for instance  engage in arguably more dangerous and antisocial practices. [9] While helmets drastically lessen the severity of head injury to cyclists, helmet-law advocates rarely promote helmet use as part of a comprehensive set of safety, education and facility-development measures aimed at cyclists and motorists alike. The European Cyclists' Federation estimates that the expenditures required to equip all bicyclists with helmets in a country or state would prevent more accidents and injuries if spent instead for safety education and on improving the cycling infrastructure. [10]

This conclusion appears to have been borne out in at least one local example. The town of Cranford, NJ, instituted an ambitious bicycle safety campaign aimed at both motorists and bicyclists in 1973. Accidents declined about 30% from pre-campaign levels over the next few years, and have remained low. Cranford continues to spend $1,000 each year on bicycle safety education. [11]